Quasthoff should shut his mouth and sing
REG
musicianship is very good, but there's not much of interpretation for me. In
any case, there was an article printed here a couple of days ago that shows
why singers should sing or otherwise keep their mouths shut. In pertinent
part, Quasthoff said
"Unstoppable now, Quasthoff switches to music education. "A cultured
population is better than an uncultured one. In Britain it would be
more useful to invest in music than in wars. This Iraq war is the most
stupid, incredible, dumb project that the British Government has ever
been involved with. Would you want to have to tell a mother her son
died because of a war which is a lie? But Bush is doing it, and Blair,
too. I'm very proud of my Chancellor for saying we wouldn't enter this
war. So now you know my politics, too. I'm a red one, an old socialist.
A really big artist can never be Nazi. And as for Israel's attitude to
Wagner, it's disgusting. Is it his fault he was misappropriated by the
Nazis? Everyone was anti-Semitic in his time."
He launches a furious attack on members of the Knesset who walked out
recently when President Kohler addressed them in German, adding that he
speaks as one who would not have survived the Nazi regime. Then he asks
why Palestinians and Israelis can't learn from history. "To come
through a conflict and build a wall? Excuse me, Germany showed it is
impossible to do this."
He detests the tendency to use the past as an excuse for present
behaviour. "
This would be deeply offensive from anyone, but more so from a German. What
it embodies is the genteel anti-Semitism which is so rampant in Europe,
particularly amoung leftists. Two points bear mention. First, it's obvious
that Quasthoff isn't saying that it was terrible that Wagner "and everyone
else" was anti-Semitic - he's minimizing Wagner's anti-Semitism by using a
big lie - that "everyone was anti-Semitic in his time". So obviously untrue.
Of course, Jews weren't anti-Semitic, but maybe they don't count. And of
course uncounted millions of Christians weren't anti-Semitic. What were the
Dreyfusards? And how specious of Qusthoff, who must surely know that
Nietzche broke with Wagner specifically over Wagner's anti-Semitism.
He then goes on to talk about "building a wall". Well, I presume he's
talking about the wall Israel is building (which I don't happen to agree
with either, but that's neither here nor there), but I don't hear him
talking about the walls that Europe built around the Jewish ghettos - I'd
bet he isn't even thinking of that. And while he speaks about why
"Palestinians" and Israelis can't learn from history, I don't see, at least
in this interview any condemnation of Arab anti-Semitism.
What Quasthoff has, as a self-acknowedged "red", is the same casual
indifference to anti-Semitism that Old Europe generally (and a strong
segment of liberalism in this country) has towards Jews and Israel. The
point of view can be summoned up fairly simply; "If not for the Jews, and if
not for Israel, there'd be no problems with the Middle East". That's the
point of view, and it's one that's been enunciated by anti-Semites
throughout history.
If some of you are tempted to jump to Quasthoff's defense, please remember
that he makes the ridiculous, Soviet-era claim that a great artist can't be
a Nazi. Of corse that's not true, and great artists were Nazis. But more to
the point, I wonder why Quasthoff wouldn't say that a great artist can't be
a Communist. We know his body is unfortunately distorted, and we want to
think his spirit, in compensation, is not, but I'm afraid it's his spirit
that's the more distorted of the two.
REG
Richard Loeb
were not both great artists and rabid Nazis???? Do you think he actually
meant that??? Was the actual article in German?? Would be interesting in
reading that to see if thats what the intent was Richard
Gwerman"REG" <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:MRk7e.1791$yl6.5...@twister.nyc.rr.com...
REG
must be a troll spoof, but apparently it's not. And of course though Ney was
maddening at time stylistically, she was in my view (unfortunately) a great
artist as a pianist, though she was more anti-Semitic than the Fuhrer. And
of course Pfitzner as a conductor was very fine (and I am one of those odd
ducks who like Palestrina). And I am one of those people who think Bohm a
very fine conductor (though some consider him a kappelmeister) and he was
right out there in uniform.
"Richard Loeb" <loe...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:X-udnWz_Zeh...@comcast.com...
James Kahn
>I am not such a fan as others - the instrument is impressive, and the
>musicianship is very good, but there's not much of interpretation for me. In
>any case, there was an article printed here a couple of days ago that shows
>why singers should sing or otherwise keep their mouths shut. In pertinent
>part, Quasthoff said
>"Unstoppable now, Quasthoff switches to music education. "A cultured
>population is better than an uncultured one. In Britain it would be
>more useful to invest in music than in wars. This Iraq war is the most
>stupid, incredible, dumb project that the British Government has ever
>been involved with. Would you want to have to tell a mother her son
>died because of a war which is a lie? But Bush is doing it, and Blair,
>too. I'm very proud of my Chancellor for saying we wouldn't enter this
>war. So now you know my politics, too. I'm a red one, an old socialist.
>A really big artist can never be Nazi. And as for Israel's attitude to
>Wagner, it's disgusting. Is it his fault he was misappropriated by the
>Nazis? Everyone was anti-Semitic in his time."
<rest snipped>
It's a shame when someone so admirable for his accomplishments
makes a fool of himself this way. Of course he has a perfect
right to speak his views, but one would hope he would realize that
he will alienate a sizeable chunk of his audience, and tarnish
his image. And this would be true of an artist staking out any
extreme political position, left or right. What makes them think
we have any interest in their political views? I suppose most
artists are self-absorbed, but this takes cluelessness to a higher
level.
--
Jim
New York, NY
(Please remove "nospam." to get my e-mail address)
http://www.panix.com/~kahn
Richard Loeb
getting Krauss (whose work to save the Jews while remaining in Germany
should be better known) booted out of the directorship of the reopening
Vienna State Opera in 1954-5 so that he would get it. Of course he didn't
have it for long. Richard
"REG" <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xol7e.1797$yl6.5...@twister.nyc.rr.com...
Lasse
stephenmead
Nietszche, Leopold II of Bavaria, Wagner's patron and Minna, Wagner's first
wife were all horrified by Wagner's fierce anti-semitism and that was one of
the main reasons why all three eventually became estranged from him. The
parents of the very anti-semitic last Kaiser of Germany, the Crown Prince
Friedrich and his wife Victoria, daughter of Queen Victoria, were not
anti-semitic at all and caused a sensation in Berlin in the 1870's by making
a point of attending several Jewish religious services in the synagogues
there to demonstrate their solidarity with the Jewish community at a time of
verbal and physical attaks on Jews and their property inspired by
anti-semitic newspapers and "Christian" preachers and politicians.
Obviously great artists can be Nazis, Communists, Satanists, whatever,being
a genius does not necessarily go with being a nice person.
However I think that there is nothing wrong with Quatshoff being proud of
his country for not joining in the invasion of Iraq and I am uneasy about
the equation of any criticism of Isreal as "anti-Semitic".A lot of
ultra-orthodox Jews do not even support the existence of Isreal and that can
hardly be because they are anti-Semitic. I agree with him and so do the
Israelis I know, that the ban on Wagner in Isreal is absurd and offensive.
It would probably be better if artists did not discuss politics in public
but they have to give interviews these days and many of them cannot resist
using these opportunities to express their strongly-held opinions.
REG
I deliberately didn't address Q's being proud of his country or his feelings
about Iraq....also, just to be clear on my own view, it's not a matter of
what one thinks of one Israeli position or another that can imply
anti-Semitism, but the singling out of Israel (or Jews) which clearly does
so. Although of course we don't know the entire context of what was said,
and have to trust the interviewer (which trust is not always justified), I
might not have written what I did if all Q had said was that he disagreed
with the building of a wall. But context is important, and the context we
have is broader than that.
Best
REG
"stephenmead" <ste...@mead9720.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:d3lauh$ls5$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
Ken Meltzer
stephenmead wrote:
> It would probably be better if artists did not discuss politics in
public
> but they have to give interviews these days and many of them cannot
resist
> using these opportunities to express their strongly-held opinions.
I'm not sure we can have it both ways. If people are happy to have
Thomas Quasthoff sing in the Beethoven Ninth at Mauthausen, in a
concert to mourn the horrors of the Nazi concentration camps, then I
think it's difficult to turn around and say he "should shut his mouth"
when he says something about politics with which we might not agree.
I've met Thomas Quasthoff and interviewed him a couple of times. He's
a person who is blunt and speaks his mind. I don't agree with
everything he says (perhaps even the majority of what he says), but
he's a very intelligent man who has served as an inspiration to many.
He's earned the right to express what he believes.
Best,
Ken
Jeffrey
--
Jeffrey
REG
Knesset who protested a speech to them in German (which doesn't mean that I
agree with them) - but a singer or another artist can't easily have it both
ways. If he or she wants to be a vehicle for their own political opinions,
they have to assume that the response they get may be broader than they'd
like. If we accept that art is "universal" - although of course that's an
oversimplification - then I think that artists should let their messages
penetrate to the widest possible audience, and that gets diluted when they
add on top their own personal views of political situations.
"Jeffrey" <mer...@icon.co.za> wrote in message
news:d3lm16$e0u$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
Enzoadorato
Wagner, it's disgusting. Is it his fault he was misappropriated by the
Nazis? Everyone was anti-Semitic in his time."
I published that article..i adore the MAN AS A SINGER..but the above
statement is DUMBBBBBBBBB...One can be a BIG NAZI and have a wonderful
voice....of course.......and to say that "everyone was anti-semitic" is
also stupid.....Look,the man can sing like hell...but who says he knows
what he is talking about??CH
JAG...@aol.com
it would be nice if he could sing on pitch once in awhile. jag
James Kahn
>A lot of
>ultra-orthodox Jews do not even support the existence of Isreal and that can
>hardly be because they are anti-Semitic.
Irrelevant. That is a religious disagreement among (a very few) Jews.
Blacks use the "N" word with each other, does that entitle whites to
use it?
>I agree with him and so do the
>Israelis I know, that the ban on Wagner in Isreal is absurd and offensive.
Do you actually know any Israelis? Because if you did, you would probably
know that there is no ban on Wagner in Israel. One organization
chooses not to program Wagner out of deference to the feelings of
some members of its audience. You find that "absurd and offensive"?
wkas...@comcast.net
Enzoadorato wrote:
> I published that article..
"Published"?
Bill
capa0...@aol.com
REG wrote:
>
What
> it embodies is the genteel anti-Semitism which is so rampant in
Europe,
> particularly amoung leftists. Two points bear mention. First, it's
obvious
> that Quasthoff isn't saying that it was terrible that Wagner "and
everyone
> else" was anti-Semitic - he's minimizing Wagner's anti-Semitism by
using a
> big lie - that "everyone was anti-Semitic in his time". So obviously
untrue.
> >
==============================================
==============================================
A small lie, REG, perhaps, but not a big one, IMO.
In the 1830's Charles Dickens, one of the most progressive literary
voices of the century in most respects, wrote passages about Fagin,
'the old Jew', that make us cringe today. In the mid 1850's Gobineau
published his 'Inequality of Human Races', a mishmosh of racial
theories which gave anti-Semitic beliefs a veneer of academic
respectability. He and his ilk were considered erudite philosophers by
many in the beau monde of western Europe. Organized political parties
whose primary tenet was anti-Semitism formed in Germany, France and
Austria-Hungary in the mid-to-late 19th century. The very word
'anti-Semitism' was coined in 1879 in response to all this
'social thinking'.
In Eastern Europe things were even worse. There were terrible pogroms
in the Ukraine in 1881 and elsewhere in southern Russia in 1883. Jews
were expelled from Moscow in 1891-92, and more pogroms followed in
Kishinev 1903 and Odessa 1905 (300 dead, thousands injured).
The pogroms of the 1880's were so bad that 20% of Russian Jews are
believed to have fled the country. In 1894 the Dreyfus court-martial
gave rise to the public eruption of the festering boil of anti-Semitism
in France. It was in the wake of this rising surge of continent-wide
antipathy to the Jews that Herzl gave up on assimilation and authored
his "Der Judenstaat" in 1896.
The very fact that Wagner's anti-Semitic ravings (not to mention
Hitler's, two generations later) were not met with widespread
condemnation and personal ostracism attests to the tenor of the times.
Quasthoff's words may not have been accurate to the letter, but the
spirit of them was not far from the mark (on this point, at least).
Pat
Dan Tritter
> it would be nice if he could sing on pitch once in awhile. jag
>
jag is not only a loathesome bigoted prick, but a deaf one at that.
stephenmead
"James Kahn" <ka...@nospam.panix.com> wrote in message
news:d3lsmd$rq9$2...@reader1.panix.com...
> In <d3lauh$ls5$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk> "stephenmead"
<ste...@mead9720.freeserve.co.uk> writes:
> >A lot of
> >ultra-orthodox Jews do not even support the existence of Isreal and that
can
> >hardly be because they are anti-Semitic.
>
> Irrelevant. That is a religious disagreement among (a very few) Jews.
I don't think it is irrelevant at all but shows that criticsm of Isreal is
not in itself anti-Semitic. Of course many Isrealis do not agree with the
policies of the particular government in power at the moment and that hardly
makes them anti-Semitic either.
> Blacks use the "N" word with each other, does that entitle whites to
> use it?
>
Nobody was discussing pejorative and insulting language.
> >I agree with him and so do the
> >Israelis I know, that the ban on Wagner in Isreal is absurd and
offensive.
>
> Do you actually know any Israelis?
Yes, quite a few actually, and all passionate Wagner-lovers,just as
Barenboim is and Theodor Herzl was and many more.
> Because if you did, you would probably
> know that there is no ban on Wagner in Israel.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/Wagner.html
OK,the ban is "unofficial" as this article on the subject from the Jewish
Virtual Library says:
"Wagner's music had been unofficially banned in public in Israel since
Kristallnacht in 1938".
Apparently all that has been played there since is a radio braodcast of
Flying Dutchman in 1995, the prelude to Tristan und Isolde in a concert
conducted by Mehta in 1981 and the same piece conducted by Barenboim in
2001.
>One organization
> chooses not to program Wagner out of deference to the feelings of
> some members of its audience. You find that "absurd and offensive"?
>
That is not really the situation as the article makes clear. And also as the
article says there have been other composers as anti-Semitic as Wagner
including Chopin. And yes, I do think a ban on Wagner, official or
unofficial, is absurd and offensive. Nobody has to buy a ticket.
stephenmead
<capa0...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1113488843.4...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> A small lie, REG, perhaps, but not a big one, IMO.
>
> In the 1830's Charles Dickens, one of the most progressive literary
> voices of the century in most respects, wrote passages about Fagin,
> 'the old Jew', that make us cringe today.
That is true but Dickens himself was horrified when years after writing
Oliver Twist he received a letter from a Jewish lady complaining about how
his protrayal of Fagin in that novel had created bad feeling and prejudice
against her people. Dicken wrote back to her and explained that, as he often
did, he had based that character on a real person he had read about in the
press who happened to be Jewish and that he had not meant to cast aspersions
on Jewish people in general by writing that novel. He promised his
correspondent to try and make up for it, and introduced another Jewish
character into his last completed novel Our Mutual Friend, with the saintly
Jewish man Riah one of the characters. But the attempt to balance out Fagin
with Riah did not work, partly because Our Mutual Friend never became as
popular as Oliver Twist, but also because as generally with Dickens, his
heroes are much less memorable than his villains. Riah is an impossible Mr
Goody Two Shoes, insufferably virtuous all the way through the book who goes
out of your head as soon as you have finished the novel whereas the wicked
Fagin is unforgettable
Elizabeth Hubbell
Not only Thomas Quasthoff but you and every other poster on this board
and every operatic artist and every performing artist, period, has
already earned that right from birth. How? By being a human being.
That's how.
> Monsieur Arouet would surely disagree.
I might suggest a bit of Solon, of Cicero and of Ulpian.
Geoffrey Riggs
James Kahn
>"James Kahn" <ka...@nospam.panix.com> wrote in message
>news:d3lsmd$rq9$2...@reader1.panix.com...
>> In <d3lauh$ls5$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk> "stephenmead"
><ste...@mead9720.freeserve.co.uk> writes:
>> >A lot of
>> >ultra-orthodox Jews do not even support the existence of Isreal and that
>can
>> >hardly be because they are anti-Semitic.
>>
>> Irrelevant. That is a religious disagreement among (a very few) Jews.
>I don't think it is irrelevant at all but shows that criticsm of Isreal is
>not in itself anti-Semitic. Of course many Isrealis do not agree with the
>policies of the particular government in power at the moment and that hardly
>makes them anti-Semitic either.
>> Blacks use the "N" word with each other, does that entitle whites to
>> use it?
>>
>Nobody was discussing pejorative and insulting language.
The point is that when a small number of extremist religious Jews
oppose, for complicated theological reasons, the present state of
Israel, they do so for reasons that are 180 degrees from the reasons
that anti-Semites oppose Israel. Just as when blacks use the N word
they mean something different from what KKK members mean.
>> >I agree with him and so do the
>> >Israelis I know, that the ban on Wagner in Isreal is absurd and
>offensive.
>>
>> Do you actually know any Israelis?
>Yes, quite a few actually, and all passionate Wagner-lovers,just as
>Barenboim is and Theodor Herzl was and many more.
>> Because if you did, you would probably
>> know that there is no ban on Wagner in Israel.
>http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/Wagner.html
>OK,the ban is "unofficial" as this article on the subject from the Jewish
>Virtual Library says:
>"Wagner's music had been unofficially banned in public in Israel since
>Kristallnacht in 1938".
>Apparently all that has been played there since is a radio braodcast of
>Flying Dutchman in 1995, the prelude to Tristan und Isolde in a concert
>conducted by Mehta in 1981 and the same piece conducted by Barenboim in
>2001.
From the article: "I am opposed to any ban on culture," says Avi Chanani,
director of the classical music division of Israel's state radio. "Zubin
Mehta risked playing Wagner in one fell swoop, but I believe in introducing
him gradually, and that is what I have been doing. Wagner was a revolutionary
in music. His work is central to the development of European music. Without
Wagner it is difficult to understand the history of music. That is one
important consideration for playing his music. But what I feel is cardinal
in my decision to present Wagner on the radio is my belief that in a
democracy, the public has a right to know; it must be exposed to all
information."
>>One organization
>> chooses not to program Wagner out of deference to the feelings of
>> some members of its audience. You find that "absurd and offensive"?
>>
>That is not really the situation as the article makes clear. And also as the
>article says there have been other composers as anti-Semitic as Wagner
>including Chopin. And yes, I do think a ban on Wagner, official or
>unofficial, is absurd and offensive. Nobody has to buy a ticket.
So you think an orchestra should disregard its clientele in choosing
its programming? I certainly hope you are never put in charge of
an orchestra. Wagner is played as much as the musicians choose to play
it, given the preferences of their audience. That's not a "ban."
In criticizing these practices, you are really in effect criticizing
those (holocaust survivors, refugees, etc.) who wish not to hear
his music, since that is the reason the IPO and others have shied away
from performing Wagner. Who are you to tell these people how
they should feel about Wagner?
Terry Ellsworth
a bass-baritone when he really is a baritone is beyond me -- but REG is
right that artists would do better to open their mouths and sing and
not talk.
Terry Ellsworth
J.Venning
news:1113497851.7...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Artists are naturally in the limelight most of the time, even though
when they are not performing on stage - they are after all celebrities.
Regardless of what we feel they should or should not do, we must remember
that they too are human beings with human frailties and prejudices. They
have no doubt their opinions about everything that non artists have, and
maybe just as passionate. Should they then not give any personal opinion
about issues they hold strongly? Should they then lie to be politically
correct? Personally, I think not, but obviously there are many, including
posters in this newsgroup, who think that artists, in this case singers,
should only be let out to perform.
J.
James Kahn
Of course it's up to them to decide, but they should be aware of the
consequences. Many artists and celebrities understand this and
decide to keep their politics private (the late Johnny Carson, for
example). Some choose to speak out and let the chips fall where
they may. But they should at least realize that their views are
not particularly compelling. They have no special knowledge or
experience that makes me want to listen to their opinions. They
are simply taking advantage of their celebrity. Again,
it's their choice, but they give up something. Reagan did it, and
gave up his acting career (not that it was really going anywhere).
Ken Meltzer
http://www.andante.com/article/article.cfm?id=25239
I think it's worth reading in its entirety.
Best,
Ken
capa0...@aol.com
-- but REG is
right that artists would do better to open their mouths and sing and
not talk.
===================
Exactly right, Mr Ellsworth.
How dare people like Disraeli, Verdi, Paderewsky, Senghor, and Havel
{to name just a few of the most egregious offenders of your edict)
think they have anything to offer the non-musical/literary world?
A bunch of dilettante meddlers, the lot of them.
Pat
capa0...@aol.com
-- but REG is
right that artists would do better to open their mouths and sing and
not talk.
J.Venning
> Of course it's up to them to decide, but they should be aware of the
> consequences. Many artists and celebrities understand this and
> decide to keep their politics private (the late Johnny Carson, for
> example). Some choose to speak out and let the chips fall where
> they may. But they should at least realize that their views are
> not particularly compelling. They have no special knowledge or
> experience that makes me want to listen to their opinions. They
> are simply taking advantage of their celebrity. Again,
> it's their choice, but they give up something. Reagan did it, and
> gave up his acting career (not that it was really going anywhere).
Unfortunately, many of the successful artists in the limelight do not
have much of an educational background (nor intelligence) to make their
comments worth anything, but there will always be some who would follow
their comments as "teachings". Can you imagine following anything what
Michael Jackson has to say? Well, you can be sure that there will be some
who would. As for Reagan, I happened to be in New York at the beginning of
last year, when his funeral was shown on American television ad nauseam.
Some Americans actually hailed him as "one of the greatest American
presidents that ever lived".
J.
Marcel Baum
"James Kahn" <ka...@nospam.panix.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:d3kogd$56$1...@reader1.panix.com...
I guess I am interested in his political views.
As an actor he has to personate characters on stage and I would expect
him to be familiar with the background of his roles and the thoughts of
the author.
If Q, now asks "Is it his ( Wagners) fault he was misappropriated by
the Nazis?" he cant be aware of what contribution Wagner had in
establishing a "German art", free of any jewish influence.
It was Wagners enviousness to Meyerbeers success in Paris which caused
him to write the article "Das Judentum in der Musik" whicht is full of
native anti semitism as its best, which was a perfect template for later
generations of German leaders.
Mr. Q. sings Wagner quite frequently, I wonder whether a serious artist
after all what has happened can do this, without having in mind the
contribution of the composer to an ideology of hate.
I only can speculate that either his horizont is rather limited, or he is
a little bit vulnerable to this world of thoughts. In both respects, it
was worth to hear Mr Q.s opinion.
Terry Ellsworth
in order to spout off on everything they feel. If they weren't
celebrities nobody would listen to what they have to say. They are
using their celebrity to get their points across and I think that is
wrong. Celebrity shouldn't be used or abused in that fashion.
Terry Ellsworth
wkas...@comcast.net
Terry Ellsworth wrote:
> artists would do better to open their mouths and sing and
> not talk.
Oh, I don't think that I'd limit that to artists. The same certainly
applies to some RMO subscribers, except that I don't want to hear most
of them sing, either...
Bill
Enzoadorato
applies to some RMO subscribers, except that I don't want to hear most
of them sing, either...
Bill
Reply
Well,it's about time that you admitted it...ch
Leonard Tillman
>artists would do better to open their mouths
> and sing and not talk.
>Oh, I don't think that I'd limit that to artists. The
> same certainly applies to some RMO
> subscribers,
Yes, particularly such as the crypto-fascist clown who made that last
comment. Fortunately, it's no arbiter here or anywhere.
>except that I don't want to hear most of them
> sing, either...
Nor would any of them care to hear that boob-onic misanthrope's
undoubtedly riotous attempts at vocalisations (either).
stephenmead
> So you think an orchestra should disregard its clientele in choosing
> its programming? I certainly hope you are never put in charge of
> an orchestra. Wagner is played as much as the musicians choose to play
> it, given the preferences of their audience. That's not a "ban."
> In criticizing these practices, you are really in effect criticizing
> those (holocaust survivors, refugees, etc.) who wish not to hear
> his music, since that is the reason the IPO and others have shied away
> from performing Wagner. Who are you to tell these people how
> they should feel about Wagner?
>
> --
> Jim
> New York, NY
> (Please remove "nospam." to get my e-mail address)
> http://www.panix.com/~kahn
Nobody has to hear Wagner's music if they do not wish to. Don't buy a ticket
to the concert, switch off the radio if it comes on.
Zubin Mehta and Daniel Barenboim obviously agree with me as they have
deliberately flouted this ban, be it official or unofficial, on Wagner's
music being played in Israel..
Leonard Tillman
><Snipped FinCrud>
Res Ipsa....
Leonard Tillman
>How dare people like Disraeli, Verdi,
> Paderewsky, Senghor, and Havel {to name >just a blahblahyaddablah
How dare YOU even mention their names, Little Fool? You're certainly
not in their - nor any - league of importance.
>A bunch of dilettante meddlers, the lot of
> them.
No, but you are.
LT
PS:
Puck thee, fatso the Liar.
REG
I think the question isn't the wisdom of banning Wagner - about which I am
not going to take a position here -but about Quasthoff's deciding to "single
out" this tiny aspect of the Israeli/Arab and Israeli/Jewish/Anti-Semite
issues to criticize. I'll bet you that a lot of Jewish composers and artists
aren't played in Arab countries, and lots of Jewish artists, no matter what
they think about Israel, aren't welcome there (since Jews aren't, generally,
in much of the Arab world). It's Quasthoff's singling out of this very small
issue that's indicative of HIS attitude, and that's what I was addressing.
"stephenmead" <ste...@mead9720.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:d3m0en$k66$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
REG
perhaps that would be different, but you can't have any doubt that he was
exaggerating the ubiquity of anti-Semitism to say "Wagner wasn't so bad, and
it's the Jew's fault that they don't like him."
<capa0...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1113488843.4...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
REG
started the thread, and deliberately entitled it as I did. Why do I get a
"free pass" on something I started, when Terry gets the sarcasm from you? In
any event, the artists you named weren't "dilatants" as politicians
(although I think Paderewski was more or less a dilettante as a musician and
as a politician). Quasthoff isn't taking responsibility for his political
beliefs by putting them on the line by running for office or administering
something...he's using his celebrity to advance his own agenda.
<capa0...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1113505833.2...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
REG
earlier...I don't think it changes anything.
"Ken Meltzer" <comm...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1113500502.8...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
capa0...@aol.com
perhaps that would be different, but you can't have any doubt that he
was
exaggerating the ubiquity of anti-Semitism to say "Wagner wasn't so
bad, and
it's the Jew's fault that they don't like him."
============================
REG -- you used quotation marks in that sentence. Did Quasthoff
really say that, or are you just (unintentionally) putting words in his
mouth?
As I said before, I agree that his statement was an exaggeration, but
IIRC the interviewer made a particular point of mentioning that his
lack of fluency in English frequently caused him to use 'excessive'
adjectives. I agree with you that his statement regarding the breadth
of anti-Semitism was an exaggeration; I just don't happen to believe
that it was an egregious exaggeration.
Pat
capa0...@aol.com
than me?
Oh, I don't know. Maybe because he's a pompous, narrow-minded buffoon?
>>In any event, the artists you named weren't "dilatants" as
politicians
Of course they weren't. That's precisely the point. If they had
been forbidden by social
custom from voicing socio-political opinions because they were creative
artists, they would never have been permitted to wet their toes in the
waters of political discourse, much less rise to the auspicious
political positions that they eventually achieved.
And Europe would have been the less in every case, don't you agree?
>>(although I think Paderewski was more or less a dilettante as a
musician and
as a politician). \
You're entitled to your opinion. Paderewsi represented his country at
Versailles and at the League of Nations, and later served as both
minister of foreign affairs and premier. All of this after donating
virtually all of his concert earnings between 1914 and 1920 to various
Polish relief funds.
How many non-artist politicians have done as much for their country?
Pat
REG
that no idea could penetrate." Let us not be in a position where you begin
to aspire to the same. What I would ask you to do is, rather than doing
riffs off of what I or Terry or anyone else says, go back and read the
section of the interview that I excerpted, and tell me what YOU think it
means about Quasthoff. Don't interpret the interpreters - I took a stab at
saying what I THOUGHT it meant, and now I ask you to do the same. Read the
whole excerpt and tell me what you think his mentality and attitude is. In
particular, please explain to me how he goes from lauding Chancellor Schmidt
for not participating in a war which he thinks is unjust, and which would
have, to any rational person, nothing to do with Israel or Jews, to an
attack on Jews and on Israel. THAT is the train of his thought. How does he
get from one point to the other, other than with a grievance towards Jews
and Israel? If he went from Iraq to an attack on Bush and America, I would
understand that as a logical connection, though I wouldn't agree. But how
does Israel and Jews get in there? And where is his condemnation of Arab
countries that disfavor Jewish artists?
REG, who prefers James to Wells
<capa0...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1113526664.1...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
REG
disappointing to me.
<capa0...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1113527568.2...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
capa0...@aol.com
Pat, my friend, HG Wells once said of Henry James, "He had a mind so
fine
that no idea could penetrate." Let us not be in a position where you
begin
to aspire to the same. What I would ask you to do is, rather than
doing
riffs off of what I or Terry or anyone else says
REG, when TQ joins RMO, I will be more than happy to do that.
But until that halcyon day draws nigh, I think I will confine myself to
critiquing the weaknesses in the stated positions of people who are in
a position to respond.
Feel free, if you like, to assume that I agree with you on the points
that I did not take up.
But you're picking and choosing those statements of Quasthoff that you
want to take issue with, yes?
And I'm doing the same with the statements made by you and the
illustrious Mr Ellsworth.
How is that not fair?
Pat
Leonard Tillman
>the illustrious Mr Ellsworth.
Compared to you, *everyone's* illustrious, Patso the Liar.
>Patso the Liar
So proudly, the little fool says it!
Steve Silverman
"REG" <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:CGE7e.7020$n93....@twister.nyc.rr.com...
>I think your unprovoked attacks on Terry here are over the line, and
> disappointing to me.
>
Unprovoked attacks? On Ellsworth??? You have to be kidding. Now these are
what I call unprovoked attacks.
Steve Silverman
REG
this is something on which you feel strongly, how is dropping in on a topic
for the purpose of an ad hominem attack different if you do it from if
anyone else does it? For the most part, despite a couple of comments, this
very complicated and passion-generating topic has brought out fairly decent
behaviour from those who've participated. Although you are not the only
exception, you seem to be in company with others from whom you frequently to
want to disctinguish yourself.
"Steve Silverman" <ssil...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:d3ne0f$sm8$1...@sparta.btinternet.com...
Steve Silverman
> Although you are not the only
> exception, you seem to be in company with others from whom you frequently
> to
> want to disctinguish yourself.
I believe you'll find that my post was free of obscenities, insults and
other inappropriate comments. My point is that you are hardly being
even-handed in your pronouncements when you upbraid Pat for his remarks to
Ellsworth yet blatantly disregard the consistently ignorant and offensive
behaviour of the latter towards Pat. You seem to have a blind spot where
Ellsworth is concerned.
Steve Silverman
A. Brain
news:425ea72a$0$217$edfa...@dread12.news.tele.dk...
> "Terry Ellsworth" <terry...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1113497851.7...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>> I think Quasthoff is a great artist -- although why he bills himself
>> as
>> a bass-baritone when he really is a baritone is beyond me -- but REG
>> is
>> right that artists would do better to open their mouths and sing and
>> not talk.
>
> Artists are naturally in the limelight most of the time, even
> though
> when they are not performing on stage - they are after all
> celebrities.
> Regardless of what we feel they should or should not do, we must
> remember
> that they too are human beings with human frailties and prejudices.
> They
> have no doubt their opinions about everything that non artists have,
> and
> maybe just as passionate. Should they then not give any personal
> opinion
> about issues they hold strongly? Should they then lie to be
> politically
> correct? Personally, I think not, but obviously there are many,
> including
> posters in this newsgroup, who think that artists, in this case
> singers,
> should only be let out to perform.
> J.
Exactly right. A talented artist is not, ipso facto, disqualified
as a political or social critic or commentator, or...actor.
Maybe only the second or third rate artists have true political
skills and can run for office, and those who excel in the concert
hall, the theatre, or on screen arguably have found their true
"place" but just because some of these people have bizarre
or naive ideas doesn't mean that it's because they are "dumb
singers" or whatever. "Artists" who are popular are naturally
looked to for "leadership" even in political matters; occasionally
some succeed as candidates. And when an artist is a prominent
citizen and public figure, and rightly or wrongly sees something
going on that he or she finds objectionable, why not speak up?
Would anyone object to Quasthoff's or some others' pronouncements
on HIV, famine, genocide, terrorism, the envrionment, gun control?
Why not re-label this thread "Bush should resign and go
back to partying?" Or "Cheney should stop making war
and go back to making money"? At least Quasthoff is
just talking....
--
A. Brain
Remove NOSPAM for email.
Marcel Baum
"REG" <Rich...@hotmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:lCE7e.7019$n93....@twister.nyc.rr.com...
Living in Austria (which generaly isnt very much different from Germany
in this respect) I feel able to answer the question you have raised.
Mr. Q has followed a very popular pattern of thinking in Germany. One of
the key words used in this context is "east coast" . East coast is a
synonym for the jewish influence on american policy.
In the primitive view of this people, american jews have forced Mr. Bush
into the Iraq war. People are not very choosy to find reasons for this
being so. American jews are supporting Israel, Iraq is one of Israels
animies from which they follow american jews have persuaded Mr. Bush to a
ttack Iraq to eliminate a threat on Israel.
Thus attacking Mr. Bush and the USA is an attack against jews, who in
their mind have much to much influence in the world. You will find this
argumentation widespread in left wing politicians in Germany and Austria
and as Mr.Q has declared him self as being "red" he just has followed a
saying he might have picked up in the circle in which he moves.
REG
about a matter of content - whether it's true or not isn't relevant - and we
all have blindspots of course, including you.. What you've done is as much
trolling as anything you otherwise try to condemn.
"Steve Silverman" <ssil...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:d3nf74$dj$1...@sparta.btinternet.com...
REG
an old socialist, but didn't want to venture the thought on my own, which is
why I left it out of his train of throught. When he said "old" socialist, I
took him to mean "old" as in Communist - not necessarily a party member, of
course - as opposed to someone whoo was a Social Democrat. And of course the
few that the "Jewish lobby" forced the war is precisely the "big lie" that
the Nazis indulged in. It's not that TQ is a Nazi, of course, but that he
has the same conspiratorial view of Jews.
Best
REG
"Marcel Baum" <bb...@aon.at> wrote in message news:425f...@x-privat.org...
La Donna Mobile
Should musicians or other artists express political views? I don't see why not. All of us have a right to express our views, whether we have any right to be taken seriously is another matter, which is where somebody used the expression 'earn the right'. Some people feel that if they are in the public eye they have a duty to express their views, others feel that it's just cynically exploiting their access to the media. The Guardian today carries a series of interviews with various politicians about their tastes in music and films. I don't believe it adds any actual insight into the issues over which the election ought to be fought, but it's a vaguely interesting read.
I think it's worth mentioning that this article was published in the London Evening Standard, aka the Sub-Standard, which is a sister paper to the Daily Mail which specialises in whipping up fear of 'others' on a daily basis. I assume that most interviews in most publications are edited highlights; the decision to print one thing and not another is an editorial decision. And often what appears as a stream of consciousness, one thought leading on from another, is often two quite separate thoughts, separated by a long thought process, a succession of questions - often leading - and various sentences that may have given a different context.
I don't know whether singers or other musicians undergo any training on media handling, or whether they rely on their PR people and lawyer friends to help them avoid minefields. They really ought to. Especially international stars, because the approach and process of the media is different in different countries. Everywhere I've worked has had strict rules on media handling ie Don't...! When you've seen plenty of 'ordinary' people ripped apart by the media, you know full well that celebs aren't going to get off lightly.
I think there is a danger that when great musicians come out with views that are fundamentally unacceptable to their fans, they risk diminishing themselves in the eyes of those fans. Personally I avoid letting my views be influenced by anyone simply on the basis that I admire them, unless that admiration stems from a proven track record of investigating and presenting facts and sharing my values. And I don't base my artistic judgements on the artists' personal or political views.
-- http://www.madmusingsof.me.uk/weblog/ http://www.geraldine-curtis.me.uk/photoblog/
DylanBD
right-wing, I don't see any of the bigotry in Quasthoff that you do.
REG
"La Donna Mobile" <ladonn...@REMOVEbrixton.fsworld.co.uk> wrote in message news:d3o7aq$s6n$1...@titan.btinternet.com...
REG
"REG" <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:wuN7e.7067$n93...@twister.nyc.rr.com...
capa0...@aol.com
why not. All of us have a right to express our views, whether we have
any right to be taken seriously is another matter,
Also, why should anyone automatically give the views of an artist or
celebrity more weight than they would those of the local pubkeeper or
their mother-in-law?
I'm always amazed that companies are willing to pay, say, Tiger Woods,
millions of dollars to sit behind the wheels of Buicks. But
apparently lots of people pay attention to celebrity endorsements even
though, deep down, I think that people believe that most endorsers
would switch autos or soft drinks or shaving creams in a heartbeat if
someone else offered them a better deal.
I read the other day that that oft-replayed shot of Tiger Woods'
miraculous chip-in on the sixteenth hole at Augusta Sunday will be
worth millions to Nike, because the tortoise-like movement of the ball
-- and its penultimate pause -- clearly displayed the Nike swoosh logo.
I had seen the replay of the shot eight or ten times, and had never
noticed that -- and if I had it wouldn't have influenced my choice of
golf balls or sportswear.
It's not artists that need to be reined in or stifled; we need to teach
our children to think for themselves and to avoid being influenced by
slogans and symbols.
Pat
Steve Silverman
> whether it's true or not isn't relevant
Well we'll have to agree to differ on that. From my perspective it is
extremely relevant when when one of the more civilised and articulate
members of this group is criticised for his remarks to another poster who
has become infamous for his bad manners and pre-emptive insults.
> What you've done is as much
> trolling as anything you otherwise try to condemn.
Again, we'll have to agree to differ on that, although I've a funny feeling
that someone will be along shortly to supply a ringing endorsement of your
position. :-))
Steve Silverman
Jeffrey
--
Jeffrey
Ken Meltzer
REG wrote:
<<I agree with much of what you say generally about the topics you
address, but I think you set up a straw man in suggesting that the
newspaper may be to blame - I would be cautious about any such press
report, but TQ has an opportunity to distance himself from the report
if he wants to. Ken Melzer has separately suggested, in this thread,
that the kind of personality and views which come across in the
interview are not inconsistent with he has personally experienced from
TQ, although he didn't address the specific content.>>
All I meant was that when I spoke with Quasthoff and interviewed him,
he impressed me as someone who had strong opinions and was not afraid
to express them. That is what I see in the article under discussion as
well.
In my personal conversations with Quasthoff, he did not impress me as
someone who harbors intolerance toward groups of people-far from it. I
found him to be a very warm, humane person, with interesting views on a
wide range of subjects. But we didn't discuss politics, at least not
that I can remember.
Best,
Ken Meltzer
Ken Meltzer
James Kahn wrote:
> It's a shame when someone so admirable for his accomplishments
> makes a fool of himself this way. Of course he has a perfect
> right to speak his views, but one would hope he would realize that
> he will alienate a sizeable chunk of his audience, and tarnish
> his image. And this would be true of an artist staking out any
> extreme political position, left or right. What makes them think
> we have any interest in their political views? I suppose most
> artists are self-absorbed, but this takes cluelessness to a higher
> level.
Either that, or they took a look at the ever-growing length of this
thread!
Best,
Ken
La Donna Mobile
capa0...@aol.com wrote:
Should musicians or other artists express political views? I don't see why not. All of us have a right to express our views, whether we have any right to be taken seriously is another matter, ================================ Also, why should anyone automatically give the views of an artist or celebrity more weight than they would those of the local pubkeeper or their mother-in-law?
I mentioned a Guardian article on politician's musical likes and dislikes. Perhaps it's worth quoting one:
"Rock music seems like an escape from politics for (Geoff) Hoon and he sees no connection between the two. 'I've been listening to the Beatles and the Beach Boys a lot longer than I've been secretary of state for defence,' he counters at the suggestion. 'And I do get a bit annoyed when I go to see U2 and Bono calls up the White House. These people wouldn't be interested in my ideas about music and I'm not interested in their ideas about politics.'
He has a point, yet, by agreeing to be interviewed by a serious newspaper about his musical tastes, he's sort of contradicting himself. I mean, I understand that he's a nice enough bloke, but why on earth should anyone care about his musical tastes. It's a fair question for the Culture, Media and Sport ministers and shadows, because we want to be confident that they have some understanding of the subject, but for a defence secretary it's just fluff and nonsense.
millions of dollars to sit behind the wheels of Buicks. But apparently lots of people pay attention to celebrity endorsements even though, deep down, I think that people believe that most endorsers would switch autos or soft drinks or shaving creams in a heartbeat if someone else offered them a better deal. I read the other day that that oft-replayed shot of Tiger Woods' miraculous chip-in on the sixteenth hole at Augusta Sunday will be worth millions to Nike, because the tortoise-like movement of the ball -- and its penultimate pause -- clearly displayed the Nike swoosh logo. I had seen the replay of the shot eight or ten times, and had never noticed that -- and if I had it wouldn't have influenced my choice of golf balls or sportswear. It's not artists that need to be reined in or stifled; we need to teach our children to think for themselves and to avoid being influenced by slogans and symbols. Pat
Jon E. Szostak, Sr.
But they risk alienating their fans if their thoughts are somewhat
controversial. Sure...I think Wagner's music should be held apart from
Wagner the man and philosopher...and enjoyed for what it is...compositional
genius. But please refrain from the 'Nazi' comments...the reality of the
Holocaust can only be discounted by fools and idiots...or people with their
heads in the sand...if not up their butts.
Quasthoff has made a monumental 'faux pas'. I agree that artists need be
very careful if they wish for their careers to continue. If they open their
mouths for other reasons than to sing...they must face the consequences.
Better they should just sing...and leave the political comments to the news
media...they're mostly clowns anyway...and getting paid to do and be so.
--
Jon E. Szostak, Sr.
La Donna Mobile
REG wrote:
I agree with much of what you say generally about the topics you address, but I think you set up a straw man in suggesting that the newspaper may be to blame - I would be cautious about any such press report, but TQ has an opportunity to distance himself from the report if he wants to. Ken Melzer has separately suggested, in this thread, that the kind of personality and views which come across in the interview are not inconsistent with he has personally experienced from TQ, although he didn't address the specific content.
Secondly, I agree that bigotry is the same no matter who it's directed at, but TQ apparently doesn't. Why single out Jews and Isreal, and why do from a criticism of Iraq to issues of Jews and Israel? I think the answer is prejudice, and another poster has corroborated his view of that.Again, we don't disagree on that many parts of this,but I will ask you the same thing I asked Pat....please look at the parts of the interveiw I excerpted and explain to me how he can get from music education to Britain participating in Iraq to Jew's obstinance in "banning" Wagner to putting Wagner in a context of being "not so different than everyone else" to the Israeli Wall. Please tell me how he goes from Iraq to Jewish intransigence to the Israel wall. I think it impossible to explain that reasonably without coming to a conclusion that TQ has the casual indifference of many in the European left to Anti Semitism, and the same tendency to blame Israel (ie, Jews) for the problems in the middle east.
I find it unlikely that someone with an academic background in law and its thought processes came out with that as one stream of consciousness, but was prompted by a series of questions which led to the questions being brought back to music, and inevitably, considering his operatic repertoire, Wagner.
I realise that I'm probably being way too meta, but I know from experience that even the most anodyne interview eg the one I granted to the Irish Independent will inevitably be chopped, let alone ones where the subject matter is controversial. Which is why I believe people ought to have media handling training, or employ an expert when they're talking to the media. There is the alternative viewpoint that no publicity is bad publicity....
Regards
La Donna Mobile
REG wrote:
And as a general PS, please note that he's talking to an English interveiwer. I'd like to know, if he's interested in freedom of artistic expression, why he isn't taking a position against the Muslims fatwas against various writers, including Rushdie, the death of van Gogh and the threats and intimidation against the writer in Britain who was excoriated for a play which exposed her own "people" to criticism (and I am not sure that one is even Muslim). I think the mere selectivity of his "criticism" tells you what his biases are.
If I were being cheeky or pedantic I could point out the omissions in your list of censored items (!) and indeed in my own, but it would be extremely tedious on a newsgroup known for its quick lines in repartee, and its abhorrence of lists, to conjure up an instant Ph. D thesis in censorship.
REG
was early morning and I could have made the point with a little less
personalizing of it.
REG, somewhat contrite
"Steve Silverman" <ssil...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:d3oceo$3mv$1...@titan.btinternet.com...
REG
"Ken Meltzer" <comm...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1113569975.2...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
REG
"La Donna Mobile" <ladonn...@REMOVEbrixton.fsworld.co.uk> wrote in message news:d3oi5r$dna$1...@sparta.btinternet.com...
J.Venning
news:fomdndYxzoQ...@giganews.com...
> (snip)
> Quasthoff has made a monumental 'faux pas'. I agree that artists need be
> very careful if they wish for their careers to continue. If they open
their
> mouths for other reasons than to sing...they must face the consequences.
> Better they should just sing...and leave the political comments to the
news
> media...they're mostly clowns anyway...and getting paid to do and be so.
The majority of showbiz celebrities (these include opera singers) are in
fact not qualified to give any public statements regarding politics and
religion. Since their livelihood depends almost entirely on public opinion,
they should in fact refrain from commenting on touchy issues in public, less
they lose their meal ticket. The difficulty is to know where to draw the
line between expressing oneself and commenting on a touchy issue in public.
J.
Jon E. Szostak, Sr.
obvious...but would comments made at say...a dinner party be public
commentary? Or a gathering of a few people at a public eatery or watering
hole? Tricky to say the least...and I see it as bordering on 'invasion of
privacy'. I guess ultimately it must depend upon the individual artist's
mind-set...and how secure they feel about their careers.
--
Jon E. Szostak, Sr.
"J.Venning" <Danis...@Opera.jantelov> wrote in message
news:426102b9$0$289$edfa...@dread12.news.tele.dk...
Ken Meltzer
REG wrote:
> He's hiding it :)
Maybe I just brought out the best in him! (;-)
Best,
Ken
Steve Silverman
> And I am going to retract some of the asperity in my comments to you....it
> was early morning and I could have made the point with a little less
> personalizing of it.
No problem. I know your comments were sincerely made. I'm sorry if my
original remarks caused you offence.
Steve Silverman
Terry Ellsworth
you go and bend over and say you're "somewhat contrite."
C'mon, be a man!
Terry
capa0...@aol.com
Terry
-------------------------------
Uh, oh. This looks like a bad Omen that trouble may be brewing in
paradise. Damien seems to be turning on Pythias.
But you know what I always say - 'With friends like Ellsworth, who
needs .... ' well, let's not go there.
Good luck, REG.
You'll need it. ;-)
Pat
donpaolo
Great work, rev - keep it up, as usual!
DonP.
<capa0...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1113675703.3...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
J S
<< What a wussy backdown to Silverman...he doesn't backdown one bit and
you go and bend over and say you're "somewhat contrite."
C'mon, be a man!>>
Both men, as civilized people will, made efforts at pouring oil on
troubled waters, which raises them in the esteem of discriminating
people. It's an expression of maturity and grace, Mr Ellsworth -
qualities you apparently don't possess and can't understand.
~ Roger
Leonard Tillman
Ratso Patso Finley (The Liar) babbles:
>Uh, oh. This looks like a bad Omen
You ARE a bad Omen.
>trouble may be brewing in paradise.
KATHLEENEY can't likely have found Paradise in your mephitic presence,
Liar.
> Damien seems to be turning on Pythias.
Either can outmatch you.
>But you know what I always say - 'With friends
> like Ellsworth, who needs ....
Hmm....
I always say - "With fiends like Finley the Liar, stupidity and
hypocrisy are guarandamnteed".
>' well, let's not go there.
You already have. Why don't you STAY there.
>Patso the Lying GhoulFool
True...true....
Leonard Tillman
Leonard Tillman
From: donp...@erols.com (donpaolo)
>How non-taunting/non-instigatory can a
> person get?
Finley the Liar has successfully and openly shown him/itself as a cheap,
bottom-feeding little ghoul (to all fairminded people who've read his
latest ventures into FinMeltdownLand), its hypocritical "criticisms" of
me and of others notwithstanding in any way whatsoever.
>Great work, rev - keep it up, as usual!
It's guaranteed, as are the replies Il Rev-olto earns and deserves.
>DonP.
LT
<capa0...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1113675703.3...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>What a wussy back down to Silverman ... he
> doesn't backdown one bit and you go and
> bend over and say you're "somewhat
> contrite."
>C'mon, be a man!
>Terry
-------------------------------
(With totally unmasked glee, the little FinLiar squeaks)
>Uh, oh. This looks like a bad Omen that
> trouble may be brewing in paradise. Damien
> seems to be turning on Pythias.
>But you know what I always say - 'With friends
> like Ellsworth, who needs .... ' well, let's not
> go there.
Wow. What a "well-meaning" exemplar of decorum!
>Good luck, REG.
>You'll need it. ;-)
You NEED a didee change, already, Patso the Liar.
>Patso the Liar
As I said.
Leonard Tillman
Leonard Tillman
>my post was free of obscenities
Lies, your specialty, ARE obscenities, ergo your posts are consistently
full of them.
>insults and other inappropriate comments.
Again - your specialties.
> My point is that you are hardly being
> even-handed
You, OTOH, are even-headed:
Your skull spends equal time up and deep within the anuses of finkLey
and storfer. Hence, you, silVermin, are literally even-headed.
Helpfully,
Leonard Tillman
Steve Silverman
Don't believe whoever it was that told you better late than never, Tillman.
Steve Silverman
Leonard Tillman
>Don't believe whoever blahblaaaaah
SilVermin,
So long as you are the "who/what-ever" in reference, I solemnly and
sincerely *promise* to never ever.believe a syllable out of your
keyboard nor from any of your apertures - above, below, whatever,
whereever.
Leonard Tillman
Mark D Lew
<jszostaks...@comcast.net> wrote:
> J: Perhaps even touchier is the definition of 'public'. An interview is
> obvious...but would comments made at say...a dinner party be public
> commentary? Or a gathering of a few people at a public eatery or watering
> hole? Tricky to say the least...and I see it as bordering on 'invasion of
> privacy'. I guess ultimately it must depend upon the individual artist's
> mind-set...and how secure they feel about their careers.
I don't think the borderline is so hard to manage. I can think of
plenty of celebrities whose political views are not secret but are not
publicly declaimed either.
mdl
Mark D Lew
<capa0...@aol.com> wrote:
> How dare people like Disraeli, Verdi, Paderewsky, Senghor, and Havel
> {to name just a few of the most egregious offenders of your edict)
> think they have anything to offer the non-musical/literary world?
>
> A bunch of dilettante meddlers, the lot of them
Verdi doesn't belong on this list. His contributions to politics were
almost nil. As a friend and supporter of Count Cavour, Verdi allowed
his celebrity to win himself a seat in parliament, where he did nothing
more than add his one vote to Cavour's on every issue. Verdi never
participated in any parliamentary business, nor did he intend to.
After Cavour passed away, Verdi lost all interest and declined to run
for re-election.
Nothing wrong with any of that. I just don't think that moonlighting
as a rubber-stamp parliamentarian is in the same category as the
leadership of Disraeli, Paderewski and Havel.
mdl
Mark D Lew
<ka...@nospam.panix.com> wrote:
> Blacks use the "N" word with each other, does that entitle whites to
> use it?
For what it's worth, a great many black people *don't* use the N word
with each other and are offended by those blacks who do.
mdl
capa0...@aol.com
almost nil. As a friend and supporter of Count Cavour, Verdi allowed
his celebrity to win himself a seat in parliament, where he did nothing
more than add his one vote to Cavour's on every issue. Verdi never
participated in any parliamentary business, nor did he intend to.
After Cavour passed away, Verdi lost all interest and declined to run
for re-election
===============
Mark, I'm not an authority on Verdi, but I have always been under the
impression that he was a prominent figure in the Risorgimento,
inspirationally and otherwise. He may not have been overly interested
in the nuts and bolts of politics after actually being elected to
office, but isn't it fair to say that he was one of the spiritual
leaders, through his operas, of the Italian drive for independence? I
don't think 100,000 Italians (or whatever the number) marched and sang
in his funeral cortege just because he composed some beautiful operas.
Pat
Mark D Lew
<capa0...@aol.com> wrote:
> Mark, I'm not an authority on Verdi, but I have always been under the
> impression that he was a prominent figure in the Risorgimento,
> inspirationally and otherwise.
Inspirationally, yes. Otherwise, no.
> He may not have been overly interested
> in the nuts and bolts of politics after actually being elected to
> office, but isn't it fair to say that he was one of the spiritual
> leaders, through his operas, of the Italian drive for independence? I
> don't think 100,000 Italians (or whatever the number) marched and sang
> in his funeral cortege just because he composed some beautiful operas.
But the thread was about artists who got involved in politics, not
great artists whom a political movement embraced.
Whatever your point was, Verdi does not belong with the others you
named, who had a very different level of political activity.
mdl
capa0...@aol.com
great artists whom a political movement embraced.
Whatever your point was, Verdi does not belong with the others you
named, who had a very different level of political activity.
========================
No question about that last comment.
Not that it matters, but my take on the thread was that it was about
whether artists (like Quasthoff) had any business voicing their views
on politics and so on. Some said, in effect, 'No', they should leave
politics to the politicians. I ironically applauded that stance,
pretending to criticize "dilettantes" like Disraeli, Paderewsky and
Verdi.
My point was not that artists would necessarily make good professional
politicians, (although a few have) but that they should not be
criticized for speaking out on matters of public concern.
Regards,
Pat